Anglican priests to join Catholic Church

[Big RR]

OK to the first part, I cannot see in all those words that the passage means anything at all. Do you not think that you have used hundreds of words to say that you don't know what it means, but whatever it means it doesn't mean what you don't want it to mean?

Not certain what you mean; surely you're not saying Paul used those words, translators did. and as we know, translation is an inexact science

[thestoat]

Not certain what you mean; surely you're not saying Paul used those words, translators did. and as we know, translation is an inexact science

I've made this point before - how can we trust any of it then?

[Crackpot]

Because it's been done so over and over again with pretty much the same results and in most bibles the disputed parts are footnoted.

You get a better argument out of excluded texts but with a little bit of study it's rather clear why the vast majority of those were booted.

[MajGenl.Meade]

OK to the first part, I cannot see in all those words that the passage means anything at all. Do you not think that you have used hundreds of words to say that you don't know what it means, but whatever it means it doesn't mean what you don't want it to mean?

Not certain what you mean; surely you're not saying Paul used those words, translators did. and as we know, translation is an inexact science

Sorry BigRR I was not clear. The passage quoted from Paul means what it says. It is in your words that I cannot make out that the passage means anything at all to you. i.e. I think your response could almost have been from Andrew who is an agnostic or perhaps even thestoat who is an atheist.

Asking "what is an idolator?" seems to me to be an agnostic response at best. The issue is, if a person says "I am an idolator and I intend to go on worshipping Baal, Moloch and Vishnu" should that person be ordained as a bishop in the Christian church? Or how about an adulterer who says "There is nothing harmful in adultery. I intend to go on having affairs" - should that person be ordained in the Christian church? Should not some nice Christian explain to the nice sinner that they haven't quite got the idea yet?

I was asking what the passage meant to you - not what it didn't mean to you. I will ask again.

And as to "translation is an inexact science" words fail me. Yes, translation of individual words is sometimes debatable. But you will please note that no translation of a Biblical passage is contradicted by any other. There is no translation which says "Do you not know that wrongdoers will definitely inherit the kingdom of God?" That all say, in different words, the same thing - that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom (and the context of course is ongoing wrongdoers; not those forgiven and transformed). Translation is not inexact at all - it is carefully, scholastically and thoroughly reviewed by believers and non-believers alike.

It does however give great comfort to the enemies of Christ to see the Bible denigrated. This is not your intent but as you see from the post after yours, it's the result

Cheers
Meade

[thestoat]

Because it's been done so over and over again with pretty much the same results and in most bibles the disputed parts are footnoted.

You get a better argument out of excluded texts but with a little bit of study it's rather clear why the vast majority of those were booted.

Though you say consensus has been reached, why then do different denominations emphasise different parts of the bible?

I had heard about excluded texts. Are these the ones thrown out by Emperor Constantine? What made him throw some out but keep others?

[Crackpot]

I am unaware of ones thrown out by him personally but there were many thrown out due to shady origins in many cases or (like the Gospel of Thomas) being completely devoid of any context and in others being completely devoid of any new information.

I'm interested in learning about different excluded texts yet to this point I've yet to hear of one that hasn't been excluded for good reason.

[Scooter]

the fanatical, sneering, hatred and loathing for religion and religious people

Can you give some examples?

Are you kidding?

When I have more time, I'll bring a selection of the many many comments of this nature that regularly appear in this forum. I'm amazed that you haven't noticed this. I expected that some folks might want to justify it, but I never even considered the possibility that anyone would question that it has been going on. It's so ubiquitous.

Must be with all the noose pictures.

[loCAtek]

When forced to face such things at such a formative age is it really any wonder those who have gone through it think we'd be better off without?

Such things are dogma, not true religion/spirituality.

[loCAtek]

The fanatics.

Not fanatics at all - the passive. They simply quietly accept what they are told without thought. I have met a lot of those.

The passive, or the humble?

Because the concept of humility addresses intrinsic self-worth, it is emphasized in the realm of religious practice and ethics where the notion is often made more precise and extensive. Wiki

[MajGenl.Meade]

Though you say consensus has been reached, why then do different denominations emphasise different parts of the bible?

I had heard about excluded texts. Are these the ones thrown out by Emperor Constantine? What made him throw some out but keep others?

Please forgive my horning in on this, but what denominations emphasise which different parts?

The Roman church in reaction to the Protestant reformation declared in the 16th century that the Apocrypha was inspired scripture (not quite on the par with the Bible perhaps?) because these writings (which only show up in the Septuagint Greek translations but not in the older Jewish Old Testament) contained support for Rome's claims to authority and some of their practises.

Pentecostal and charismatic churches of course have the idea of "baptism of the Holy Spirit". They regard speaking in tongues as a sign that the Holy Spirit has arrived and can be quite harsh to members who seem reluctant to "allow" the Holy Spirit to show up.

Calvinist leanings are towards God choosing the believer whereas Arminians think the believer chooses God. Argumnts for both can be made from the Bible along with arguments that sythesise both. However, neither differs that some are saved and some are not and that God does it. Doctrine is not different.

Was it those or similar that you were thinking of?

As to the canon, "From the time of Irenaeus (c. 175), the principal spokesman of the church’s response to Gnosticism, the canon was thought to contain essentially the same books that appear in it today, though there were continuing disputes over some inclusions. The eminent Clement of Alexandria (c. 200) seemed to recognize all the New Testament books. His greater student, Origen (c. 250), divided the books into categories of universally accepted works and disputed works. In the former he put the four Gospels, the thirteen epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Acts and Revelation. In the latter he put Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude, and four works not now part of the New Testament. He himself seems to have accepted nearly all the books now included in the New Testament. Hebrews was disputed because its authorship was uncertain; 2 Peter, because it differed in style and vocabulary from 1 Peter; James and Jude, because they represented themselves as servants rather than apostles of Christ; 2 and 3 John because the author called himself an elder rather than an apostle" Vos HF 1996. Exploring Church History. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

The final canon was recognised in 397 at the Council of Carthage, long after Constantine was dead, and consisted all of the books that were in use long before he was born. That not every ancient writing was included in the Bible is a relief to me for it would be very heavy to carry around. The reasons for not including some books that appeared to claim a place (i.e. authorship by an apostle) is that they were not genuine or germane. Thus the writings of some early church fathers, though respected and useful for teaching and learning, were not included (1 Clement for example written around AD 94). It wasn't just "outside" documents that didn't make it in.

It should be a cause for some thought that the early church, the one accused of making stuff up, did NOT include its own pious and early writings in the authoritative Bible even though they were widely accepted.

Hope that helps
Meade

[Big RR]

OK to the first part, I cannot see in all those words that the passage means anything at all. Do you not think that you have used hundreds of words to say that you don't know what it means, but whatever it means it doesn't mean what you don't want it to mean?

Not certain what you mean; surely you're not saying Paul used those words, translators did. and as we know, translation is an inexact science

Sorry BigRR I was not clear. The passage quoted from Paul means what it says. It is in your words that I cannot make out that the passage means anything at all to you. i.e. I think your response could almost have been from Andrew who is an agnostic or perhaps even thestoat who is an atheist.

Asking "what is an idolator?" seems to me to be an agnostic response at best. The issue is, if a person says "I am an idolator and I intend to go on worshipping Baal, Moloch and Vishnu" should that person be ordained as a bishop in the Christian church? Or how about an adulterer who says "There is nothing harmful in adultery. I intend to go on having affairs" - should that person be ordained in the Christian church? Should not some nice Christian explain to the nice sinner that they haven't quite got the idea yet?

I was asking what the passage meant to you - not what it didn't mean to you. I will ask again.

And as to "translation is an inexact science" words fail me. Yes, translation of individual words is sometimes debatable. But you will please note that no translation of a Biblical passage is contradicted by any other. There is no translation which says "Do you not know that wrongdoers will definitely inherit the kingdom of God?" That all say, in different words, the same thing - that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom (and the context of course is ongoing wrongdoers; not those forgiven and transformed). Translation is not inexact at all - it is carefully, scholastically and thoroughly reviewed by believers and non-believers alike.

It does however give great comfort to the enemies of Christ to see the Bible denigrated. This is not your intent but as you see from the post after yours, it's the result

Cheers
Meade

Meade--it's clear and you have very different ideas of god, which is fine with me as we are all traveling different paths to the same destination. However, I will point out one thing for your consideration--do you honestly believe that something so complex and totally different from us as god can be fully explained by a single book? A book written by persons who lived thousands of years ago? These person wrote as they understood things in their own words; even taking into account divine inspiration, I have never seen any claim that the bible was dictated word for word and they transcribed it; god "spoke" to them as he/she/it still speaks to us, and they wrote down what they saw/heard/experienced as best they could. Like the blind men and the elephant, they did not necessarily have the entire picture in their minds, nor could they compare it to anything they had experienced. for example, when healing of the mentally ill is referred to as "casting out demons", that was what persons at the time thought. If I thought god really taught that such illness was cased by evil demons, I would want nothing to do with him/her/it, but I don't think that is the case. God cannot and is not contained within a book; god inhabits the universe and is not limited by any writing or our understanding of it. God speaks to us, and only asks that we listen. And if that denigrates the bible, so be it; I'd rather speak of the bible truthfully than limit god.

Stoat--

I've made this point before - how can we trust any of it then?

IMHO, the bible is a guide, one that has prevailed for centuries, and one that can be consulted, but hardly a perfect or complete description of the nature of gd. But the essence of faith is to be open to the voice of god and try and understand in light of that. God has provided us with a way of understanding things we cannot fully comprehend, and we should remain open to it.

[rubato]

Though you say consensus has been reached, why then do different denominations emphasise different parts of the bible?

I had heard about excluded texts. Are these the ones thrown out by Emperor Constantine? What made him throw some out but keep others?

Please forgive my horning in on this, but what denominations emphasise which different parts? ... "

Seventh-Day Adventists and observant Jews emphasize the 4th commandment which is ignored by all but a tiny minority of self-proclaimed "Christians".


Seventh-Day Adventists and observant Jews also recognize the dietary restrictions from the pentateuch which are wholly ignored by nearly all other self-proclaimed "Christians".


Virtually all of the "Christian" west ignores the "great commandment" to love your neighbor as yourself. Instead their universal practice has been hating Moslems, Jews, dissenting Christians, empirical science, killing them, practicing genocide against them, erasing whole cultures like the Inca, the Maya &C.


Those are some of the big ones.


yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

Then there's the whole you-can't-marry-your-brother's-widow (Leviticus 20) vs. you-shall-marry-your-brother's-widow (Deuteronomy 25) controversy which served as the pretext for the English Reformation.

[loCAtek]

Which means: One size does not fit all ...or even most.

[Timster]

Rubato is correct concerning the Fourth Commandment. And not one of you Sunday keepers can dispute the Biblical Facts.

So basically, the question of "Hell Fire and Eternal Damnation" will go undisclosed? Got it. Dang those pesky biblical purist.

The bible says that the damned shall be left without 'root or branch', forever. Not that the root and branch shall be burned FOREVER; but that by their own choice they have separated themselves from God's Grace; thereby separating themselves from God eternally. Sort of like the one and only Unforgivable sin; Rejecting the Holy Spirit.

My God is not in the business of tormenting people forever!@ for the sins committed over a short mortal life span. She (Yes , the many breasted one. Who gave the WHITE Male Jesus the corner on the market of Salvation?) is in the business of forgiveness.

If yours is not looking to forgive but just rain down righteous and unrelenting judgment and punishment? , then I suggest looking into another god. Just saying.

Seems like a pretty raw deal to me and does not readily recommend itself to the unconverted...

And if an Anglican priest wants to join Catholic Church? So what? Knock yourself out says I.

Let the dopey bastard follow his conscience. Who are we to judge?

Ps: Let the record show that I did not even begin to address the issue of idol worship; that is another rant along with how a mere man (the Pope) can place himself in the seat of Authority of Christ Almighty . . .

[thestoat]

The fanatics.

Not fanatics at all - the passive. They simply quietly accept what they are told without thought. I have met a lot of those.

The passive, or the humble?

Because the concept of humility addresses intrinsic self-worth, it is emphasized in the realm of religious practice and ethics where the notion is often made more precise and extensive. Wiki

The passive. You can question what you are told and still be humble. Very different.

In fact, if you don't question what you are told but just blindly accept it then that smacks of gullibility in an adult (children have yet to mature and are thus different). Now, obviously I need to qualify that. I accept without questioning certain things, such as "the sun is 93 million miles from the earth". I do this for 2 reasons.

1. It is based on observable evidence and, were I to care greatly, I could use the physics knowledge I have already gained and verify the truth of the claim
2. It doesn't particularly affect how I live or what I do

I don't accept "there is a god" because it is not based on observable evidence and believing in one would affect how I live my life.

[thestoat]

there were many thrown out due to shady origins in many cases or (like the Gospel of Thomas) being completely devoid of any context and in others being completely devoid of any new information.

Were not some thrown out because they were just too fantastic and completely unbelievable? Where would you draw the line (apart from the obviously "where it has been drawn")

[thestoat]

Please forgive my horning in on this, but what denominations emphasise which different parts?

Well, Meade, it is clear you have a much greater understanding of the various Christian religions than I have, and I therefore always appreciate your answers Added to Rubato's answer I would say that without the disagreements there would surely not be different churches. An obvious example is that catholics don't believe in contraception - protestants do. Since all their doctrine comes from the same book that surely demonstrates a different emphasis or understanding.

Further, we discussed where the bible contradicted itself. You answered (rather eloquently, (though not satisfactorily - I simply couldn't find the words to express my unease with your answer)) the points I made, but I don't know the bible well enough to be able to quote passages from it. Scooter has given an excellent example of biblical contradiction and I would be very interested in your response to it.

When we discussed the "eye for an eye" versus the "turn the other cheek" you mentioned something about them applying to different slights. I am still uneasy with that answer but will need to think how to put it in to words As ever though, it is good to hear from someone knowledgeable on such things (this applies to pretty much everyone participating here).

[loCAtek]

The passive. You can question what you are told and still be humble. Very different.

In fact, if you don't question what you are told but just blindly accept it then that smacks of gullibility in an adult (children have yet to mature and are thus different). Now, obviously I need to qualify that. I accept without questioning certain things, such as "the sun is 93 million miles from the earth". I do this for 2 reasons.

1. It is based on observable evidence and, were I to care greatly, I could use the physics knowledge I have already gained and verify the truth of the claim
2. It doesn't particularly affect how I live or what I do

I don't accept "there is a god" because it is not based on observable evidence and believing in one would affect how I live my life.

Well, if you're not happy with your beliefs, then by all means question them and find the answers that do satisfy you.

However, why should other's ways to happiness be questioned? If they are passive, but happy, isn't that true humility?

If you're suggesting, that they shouldn't be happy because they don't hold your beliefs, that sounds a bit prideful, IMHO, the opposite of humility in fact. That's trying to make one-sized happiness fit all, with your version of it, to boot.

[loCAtek]

To add further, I believe you're saying that being 'passive', or not questioning, is not knowing about the scientific aspects of life.
That touches on what I posted before;

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but there appears to be an atheistic notion that more scientific education will result in less religious belief. Granted, religion is becoming more secular and inclusive, see: the Inter-faith movement, but rather than disappearing, it is evolving to accept all forms of worship, and dismiss none of them.

E.G. Pagans/Wiccans are no longer shunned/burned, but are ceremoniously interned along side Christians, Jews, etc.

Certainly, the Western world has a much better education in science et al, and that knowledge does satisfy some people's beliefs. Some who have the same eduction, are still happy with their religious or spiritual beliefs. I don't see that as passivity, just a different life choice. Rather than just disagreeing and making your own choice, but Insisting people somehow shouldn't choose that (religious) way, is bordering on intolerant.

We don't withhold the highly scientific choice of believing in UFOs and Roswell landings, do we?